At least they were subtle with Travis Kiger, Jennifer Fitzgerald, and Bruce Whitaker.

This time Chevron wrote a check for $500 directly to Don Bankhead. It wasn’t routed through the OC Biz PAC, it wasn’t routed through their Land and Development Manager, and it wasn’t routed through their Policy, Government, and Public Affairs Manager, either.

This is corporate meddling at its worst. You can view Mr. Bankhead’s 460 form (filed very late by the way) here.

Some food for thought, Fullerton . . .

Chevron thinks that Measure W, Development in West Coyote Hills, is a great idea and in Fullerton’s best interest. They’re calling it a “win-win”.

Chevron also thinks it’s a great idea and in Fullerton’s best interest to let Don Bankhead into the Guinness Book of World Records as the first public official in the United States to return to the same office from which he was recalled TWICE. Maybe we can call that a win-lose-win-lose-win.

Here’s hoping we can put two and two together to get four.

About Ryan Cantor

Our young conservative columnist, based in Fullerton, works as a Project Development Analyst and Strategic Planner for a major petroleum firm, and is an avid homebrewer. (Anger Management Brewery)

12 Comments

He also has a problem falling asleep during city council meetings. You can’t be surprised he willing to take money from anyone giving it to him at this point. He loves sleeping in the chair.
Scary thing is why Chevron is giving him money though. They can’t be throwing money like that for no reason…

Hey Ryan, You need to be made aware of something about Bankhead that you might like to look into. Even the verbose Mr. Diamond might like it as well (but I respectfully ask him to tell me the time instead of build me a clock in his answer – if any)

Has anybody noticed Bankhead is putting up RE-ELECT Don Bankhead signs…? Think about it for a minute… The man was recalled. He is not elected… He cannot use those signs since it implies to the ignorant voters he is still in office at the moment… It looks like he has purchased some of them recently… Does this bother anyone? It should… Is this legal??? Where should complaints go and who has controlling authority to make him take them down? Once a liar always a liar, this Don Bankhead… A little help please?

Eh. He was elected four years ago; he wants to be elected now. I’m no Don Bankhead fan, but I don’t think that there’s an ethical requirement to say “re-elect me to the seat from which I was recalled.” His opponents are supposed to catch and explain that. (That they aren’t so much doing so suggests that they don’t think Bankhead is going to win anyway.)

If you share a spot in history as one of two elected officials recalled from the same office twice and you’re seeking to become the solo record holder as the only person returning for a third time . . . yeah, there’s an ethical requirement to explain why you want to embarrass the municipality and all your prospective constituents.

Based on what I’ve seen, I agree– he’s not going to win, but he will be pulling votes from some of Fullerton’s fresher faces that ought to be considered.

Greg Diamond

Posted October 17, 2012 at 1:25 PM

No, there really isn’t such an ethical requirement — no more so than Kiger is ethically required to use as a slogan on his posters “Leading Fullerton into Bankruptcy!” The ethical requirement is not to shut down your opponents’ free speech when they call you on it.

Ryan Cantor

Posted October 17, 2012 at 1:34 PM

Um, what?

I don’t follow Dr. D. Not sure how we jumped from Mr. Bankhead to Mr. Kiger– but Bankhead owes Fullerton more than what he’s giving. His campaign thus far has been unethical and selfish.

Clearly that’s my view of an objective application of morality, but I’m going to seriously struggle with anyone advocating “It’s OK!” for Bankhead to run around listing endorsers like Ms. Jan Flory . . . unless she really does back his candidacy.

Greg Diamond

Posted October 17, 2012 at 1:51 PM

No, I think that listing people as endorsers when they haven’t endorsed him this time is absolutely unethical. I just don’t think that a candidate is required to spell out the reasons why one might vote against him or her. Bankhead isn’t, Kiger isn’t, Flory isn’t. (Hopefully adding Flory to the list clarifies rather than confuses.)